Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Plan Of Safe Care Cara topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee fails to pass urgent CARA ‘plan of safe care’ fixes; sponsor to revisit and coordinate with related bills
Summary
House Bill 343, a bipartisan bill to amend New Mexico’s CARA/plan-of-safe-care statute to address immediate-safety procedures and close implementation gaps identified by the LFC, failed to receive a majority on a motion for due pass. Sponsors said they will roll the bill to refine language and align it with related measures.
Representative Armstrong presented House Bill 343, a bill she described as an urgent, bipartisan “critical fix” to New Mexico’s CARA (Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act) statute governing plans of safe care for substance-exposed newborns. The sponsor told the committee the measure was intended to clarify when health care providers should report imminent safety concerns and to align state language with federal CAPTA (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act) requirements.
Supporters said the current statutory language has caused confusion for hospital nurses and Statewide Central Intake (SKY/CYFD), leading in some cases to calls being screened out even when providers said they feared a newborn’s safety. “We know children have died because of it,” the sponsor said, citing the Legislative Finance Committee’s program evaluation and Department of Health data on deaths of infants on plans of safe care.
Opponents urged a health-focused approach and warned against policies that could deter pregnant people from seeking prenatal care. Micah Betsini of Bold Futures testified in opposition, saying care and treatment should be prioritized and that oversight structures should avoid carceral responses to substance use in pregnancy.
CYFD Secretary Theresa Casados testified the department supports clarifying CARA and indicated the agency has a companion measure on the Senate side; she said CYFD would work with sponsors to refine the approach. Committee members raised technical questions about who is responsible for contact, how care navigators are used, how testing and screening would work and whether the bill would interfere with existing children’s code timeframes.
A motion for a due pass was made and seconded but did not carry. The clerk read the roll and the committee announced a result described in the record as “by a vote of 3 to 3 to 4,” after which the chairman said the motion to pass did not prevail. The sponsor asked to roll the bill and work with colleagues to refine language and policy alignment. Committee members recommended coordination with other bills (including a Senate measure) to address systemwide case management, screening, and funding issues.
Ending: The motion for due pass did not pass. The sponsor asked to withdraw/roll the bill to allow additional stakeholder work and alignment with related measures; the committee encouraged further refinement and inter-agency coordination.
